Facebook Twitter

Impose job-killing policies on the assumption that we’re causing a CO2-driven catastrophe. – Commentary by Paul Driessen


“President Obama is now warning us that ‘storms like Hurricane Sandy will become more frequent as climate change intensifies,’” says this commentary by Paul Driessen. “It’s merely the latest in the administration’s seemingly endless stream of headline-grabbing scare stories, designed to justify the job-killing, economy-strangling, family-bashing rules for vehicles, power plants, cement kilns, refineries, factories, farms, shopping malls and countless other facilities that are or soon will be regulated by Environmental Protection Agency fiat. We need to keep one vitally important fact in mind.

“Every one of these ‘looming calamities’ is based on assumptions, assertions and computer models that represent the real world about as well as the special-effects T rexes and raptors do in Jurassic Park.”

The garbage in, garbage out predictions, projections and scenarios these computer models spew forth “cost us unfathomable billions in taxpayer-funded ‘research,’ soaring energy costs, lost jobs, reduced human health and welfare, and an economy that at best limped along at a pathetic and frightening 0.1 percent in the first quarter of 2014.”


Just assume we have a climate crisis

By Paul Driessen

Impose job-killing policies on the assumption that we’re causing a CO2-driven catastrophe


Climate modelers and disaster proponents remind me of the four guys who were marooned on an island, after their plane went down. The engineer began drawing plans for a boat; the lumberjack cut trees to build it; the pilot plotted a course to the nearest known civilization. But the economist just sat there. The exasperated workers asked him why he wasn’t helping.

“I don’t see the problem,” he replied. “Why can’t we just assume we have a boat, get on it and leave?”

In the case of climate change, those making the assumptions demand that we act immediately to avert planetary crises based solely on their computer model predictions. It’s like demanding that governments enact laws to safeguard us from velociraptors, after Jurassic Park scientists found that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from fossilized mosquitoes … and brought the carnivores back to special-effects life.

Climate models help improve our conceptual understandings of climate systems and the forces that drive climate change. However, they are terrible at predicting Earth’s temperature and other components of its climate. They should never be used to set or justify policies, laws and regulations – such as what the Environmental Protection Agency is about to impose on CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Even our best climate scientists still have only a limited grasp of Earth’s highly complex and chaotic climate systems, and the many interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, atmospheric, terrestrial and other forces that control climate and weather. Even the best models are only as good as that understanding.

Worse, the models and the science behind them have been horribly politicized. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was ostensibly organized in 1988 to examine possible human influences on Earth’s climate. In reality, Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin and environmental activist groups wanted to use global warming to drive an anti-hydrocarbon, limited-growth agenda. That meant they somehow had to find a human influence on the climate – even if the best they could come up with was “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” [emphasis added]

“Discernible” (ie, detectable) soon metamorphosed into “dominant,” which quickly morphed into the absurd notion that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have now replaced natural forces and become the only factors influencing climate change. They are certainly the only factors that climate activists and alarmists want to talk about, while they attempt to silence debate, criticism and skepticism. They use the models to generate scary “scenarios” that are presented as actual predictions of future calamities.

They predict, project or forecast that heat waves will intensify, droughts and floods will be stronger and more frequent, hurricanes will be more frequent and violent, sea levels will rise four feet by 2100 [versus eight inches since 1880], forest fires will worsen, and countless animal species will disappear. Unlikely.

Natural forces obviously caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Pleistocene Ice Ages. (A slab of limestone that I dug up has numerous striations – scratches – left by the last mile-thick glacier that covered what is now my home town in Wisconsin.) After long denying it, the IPCC finally acknowledged that the LIA did occur, and that it was a worldwide agricultural and human disaster.

However, the models and computer algorithms the IPCC and EPA rely on still do not include the proper magnitude of solar cycles and other powerful natural forces that influence climate changes. They assume “positive feedbacks” from GHGs that trap heat, but understate the reflective and thus cooling effects of clouds. They display a global warming bias throughout – bolstered by temperature data contaminated by “urban heat island” effects, due to measuring stations being located too close to human heat sources. They assume Earth’s climate is now controlled almost entirely by rising human CO2/GHG emissions.

It’s no wonder the models, modelers and alarmists totally failed to predict the nearly-18-year absence of global warming – or that the modeled predictions diverge further from actual temperature measurements with every passing year. It’s no wonder modelers cannot tell us which aspects of global warming, global cooling, climate change and “climate disruption” are due to humans, and which are the result of natural forces. It’s hardly surprising that they cannot replicate (“hindcast”) the global temperature record from 1950 to 1995, without “fudging” their data and computer codes– or that they are wrong almost every time.

In 2000, Britain’s Met Office said cold winters would be a thing of the past, and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” The 2010 and 2012 winters were the coldest and snowiest in centuries. In 2013, Met Office scholars said the coming winter would be extremely dry; the forecast left towns, families and government agencies totally unprepared for the immense rains and floods that followed.

In 2007, Australia’s climate commissioner predicted Brisbane and other cities would never again have sufficient rain to fill their reservoirs. The forecast ignored previous drought and flood cycles, and was demolished by record rains in 2011, 2013 and 2014. Forecasts of Arctic and Antarctic meltdowns have ignored the long history of warmer and colder cycles, and ice buildups and breakups.

The Bonneville Power Administration said manmade warming will cause Columbia River Basin snowpack to melt faster, future precipitation to fall as rain, reservoirs to be overwhelmed – and yet water levels will be well below normal year round. President Obama insists that global temperatures will soar, wildfires will be more frequent and devastating, floods and droughts will be more frequent and disastrous, rising seas will inundate coastal cities as Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves melt and disintegrate, and 97% of scientists agree. Every claim is based on models or bald-faced assertions unsupported by evidence.

And still the IPCC says it has “very high confidence” (the highest level it assigns) to the supposed agreement between computer model forecasts and actual observations. The greater the divergence from reality, the higher its “confidence” climbs. Meanwhile, climate researchers and modelers from Nebraska, Penn State, Great Britain and other “learned institutions” continue to focus on alleged human influences on Earth’s climate. They know they will likely lose their government, foundation and other funding – and will certainly be harassed and vilified by EPA, environmentalists, politicians, and their ideological and pedagogical peers – if they examine natural forces too closely.

Thus they input erroneous data, simplistic assumptions, personal biases, and political and financial calculations, letting models spew out specious scenarios and phony forecasts: garbage in, garbage out.

The modelers owe it to humanity to get it right – so that we can predict, prepare for, mitigate and adapt to whatever future climate conditions nature (or humans) might throw at us. They cannot possibly do that without first understanding, inputting and modeling natural factors along with human influences.

Above all, these supposed modeling experts and climate scientists need to terminate their biases and their evangelism of political agendas that seek to slash fossil fuel use, “transform” our energy and economic systems, redistribute wealth, reduce our standards of living, and “permit” African and other impoverished nations to enter the modern era only in a “sustainable manner,” as defined by callous elitists.

The climate catastrophe camp’s focus on CO2 is based on the fact that it is a byproduct of detested hydrocarbon use. But this trace gas (a mere 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere) makes life on our planet possible. More carbon dioxide means crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better. CO2’s role in climate change is speculative – and contradicted by real-world measurements, observations and history.

Computer models, scenarios and predictions of planetary Armageddon are little more than faulty, corrupt, even fraudulent pseudo-science. They have consistently forecast what has not happened on Planet Earth, and failed to forecast what did happen.

They must no longer be allowed to justify EPA’s job-killing, economy-strangling, family-bashing rules for vehicles, power plants, cement kilns, refineries, factories, farms, shopping malls and countless other facilities that are or soon will be regulated by agency fiat.

___________

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

 

13 Responses to Just assume we have a climate crisis

  1. frederik wisse says:

    Power and stupidity are more often than normal walking hand in hand , Obama is the living example of this .

  2. Rosco says:

    “In 2007, Australia’s climate commissioner predicted Brisbane and other cities would never again have sufficient rain to fill their reservoirs. The forecast ignored previous drought and flood cycles, and was demolished by record rains in 2011, 2013 and 2014.”

    Should be 2011, 2012 and 2013 – 2014 has so far been well below average exemplifying the cyclic nature of weather and hence climate.

    • laurel says:

      :-) beat me to it:-)
      so far..qlds dry this year
      the scare stories re super el nino are being raved up already..and it might happen, it might not as well.
      meanwhile from overly dry to flooding alerts in victoria nth areas after heavy rains. right after they said it would be dry…

  3. Rosco says:

    I still don’t understand why everyone assumes CO2 can “trap heat”.

    Sure, it absorbs Infrared radiation and as a result increases in temperature but that simply means it will radiate slightly more thus releasing the energy again.

    Water on the other hand can “trap heat” through its phase changes from solid to liquid to gas.

    As well it absorbs FAR more infrared radiation across a wide area of the spectrum – far more than CO2.

    But even these “heat trapping” properties are merely transitory terminating every time it rains or snows – actually cloud formation involves release of the energy.

    CO2 has 3 significant absorption bands – two of the bands are at wavelengths where the terrestrial infrared radiation has probably zero energy as they are represent the peak radiation emission of objects with temperatures of about 800 and 400 degrees C according to real physics.

    However the incoming solar radiation has significant energy at those wavelengths so CO2 must act in the same manner as water vapour – decreasing the solar radiation hitting the ground.

    The wavelength at which CO2 absorbs terrestrial radiation represents the peak radiation emission of objects with a temperatures of about minus 80 degrees C.

    I’m not too worried about minus 80 degrees C causing too much warming – even in the Antarctic.

    I don’t believe the radiation from cold objects makes a warmer object even hotter.

    If it did we wouldn’t need the Sun.

    • Lloyd says:

      People have no real knowledge about the role of H2O in all this because they believe what they are told by the media, which only tells them about CO2.

      CO2 is heavier than air, and in tiny concentrations, which stay close to the earth’s surface, and therefore CANNOT trap heat. Water vapour, on the other hand FLOATS in the air, in the form of clouds, sometimes, which have a cooling effect, anyhow. Water vapour is what traps heat, not CO2, but the public is NEVER TOLD about this in any way. Even documentaries about the creation of the Solar System will tell you that Snowball Earth was caused by there not being enough CO2 in the atmosphere!! That’s just preposterous – it was caused by all the water being locked up in ice and the higher albedo of the Earth reflecting most of the sun’s heat and light back into space. Simple physics without any need to resort to claptrap about CO2 and feedback, etc, etc, etc.

      People believe what they’re told by “authorities”. The appeal to authority is powerful in the minds of the Betas and Gammas that make up our world. Even most of the Alphas don’t think anymore, but rather follow what they’ve been taught….

  4. Ben Kensington says:

    What so many people miss is that, regardless of warming or cooling, energy and natural resources are the things most needed if we are not to go back to the Dark Ages. Energy is needed to combat the changes either way, along with huge engineering projects to maintain standards of living through securing food, water and other aspects of a civilised life. One of the main things we should be concentrating on, whilst there is a clear abundance of easily accessible energy sources is to ensure that we have a huge presence in space, where the investment in energy and resources used will be repaid many times over. There isn’t a major question about life on Earth to which the answer is “We need to get into space”.

    It is quite difficult to see the environmental lobby as being anything other than traitors to the human race

  5. Dale says:

    “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. ”
    Stephen Schneider, environmental activist, in _Discover_, Oct. ’89

    “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Benjamin Franklin, 1759

    And most importantly:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.”
    Alexander Fraser Tyler, “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic”

    Are we doomed to repeat history again??? Is this the most corrupt government our country has ever seen?? When a sitting president bypasses Congress repeatedly to set up his agenda…

    As for climate change/global warming it is all about money… money and power, nothing more, and nothing less…

  6. envirogirl 4 coal says:

    Here is what I propose, Every government official should have an environmental degree, a real understanding of how the environment really works before making environmental laws. I don’t think there is a person serving in the white house that has an environmental degree. Then they would understand that we are having a CO2 shortage, not global warming, just look at the size of our plants compared to the Jurassic, and I know Dinosaurs weren’t driving cars or burning coal.

    • Rosco says:

      The real problem is not the people who have qualifications and are charged with regulating.

      I have environmental health and engineering qualifications and worked as an Environmental Health Officer for decades in Australia.

      My job consisted of principally law enforcement and some advisory functions.

      I, and many colleagues, had zero input into policy and law formulation.

      In the past regulation was sorely needed to address some serious environmental issues.

      When global warming/climate change became fashionable the agenda was “hi-jacked”.

      In the mid 1990′s Environmental Protection became very fashionable here and whilst some areas of concern were addressed the whole thrust became too regulatory and inconsequential potential environmental threats became a priority.

      The people who hijacked the agenda went too far with regulating unnecessary areas – it became a source of funding bureaucracy through licencing regimes with little positive Environmental outcomes – no, the result was even adverse outcomes as people whose business posed insignificant environmental threat were forced into a regulatory licencing regime.

      I and the majority of the people charged with enforcing this had zero input into the policy.

      Of course like all controversial policy areas of government the law eventually became “watered down” making our job even more difficult.

      I left after 7 years of unnecessary regulation.

      Looks like the US is in for something even more serious than our debacle.

    • Lloyd says:

      The problem with that, envirogirl, is that the environmental degree would be suspect. Most of the people who are promulgating this garbage are educated and the education system is also infected with the same disease. That’s actually where all this stuff starts now.

  7. Ronald says:

    No assuming needed we have a climate crisis its only the other way around.
    The world is cooling and there a just a few peopel knowing it.

  8. M. Vanwinkle says:

    Even if these guys had some of the science right, what is the rush to abandon technology before a whole new generation of electric power generation is ready? After all, as soon as it is our new king and court will want us to change to that. For example, General Fusion, Inc. is planning to fund a full scale prototype Fusion reactor (not fission!), and they aren’t the only ones close to real fusion (and I exclude the ITER boondoggle).

    So, why the rush? I have an idea, and it ain’t pretty. My guess is these Tories know the climate is going cold and this is their last chance before everyone knows the CAGW narrative is bogus.

  9. There is method in this biggest ever Ponzi scheme – early warnings have surfaced from 1994. See latest addenda to http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html


Hit Counter provided by seo company